nanog mailing list archives

RE: Lazy network operators

From: Alex Bligh <alex () alex org uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:15:52 +0100




--On 18 April 2004 03:48 +0100 Paul Jakma <paul () clubi ie> wrote:

Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?


As an IPv6 skeptic I would note that some protocols NAT extremely badly
(SIP for instance), and the bodges to fix it are costly. So if IPv6 means I
can avoid NAT, that can actually save $$$.

Alex

Current thread:

Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- - - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Apr 19)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 19)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Carlos Friacas (Apr 19)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators haesu (Apr 18)
    - Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Apr 18)
    - RE: Lazy network operators Alex Bligh (Apr 18)
    - Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 18)
    - Re: Lazy network operators Randy Bush (Apr 19)
    - Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 25)
    - Re: Lazy network operators Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Apr 20)